Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT followed its co-ordinate Bench rulings in the assessee's own earlier years on materially identical facts and found no change in law or evidence to justify a different view. It held that the presence of related entities in India and the support services they rendered did not create a fixed place, service or dependent agent PE, or a business connection, so reinsurance and retrocession receipts were not taxable in India as business profits under the treaty. It also held that the support service receipts failed the make-available test because no technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process was transferred for independent future use, and the amounts were therefore not taxable as fees for technical services. The impugned additions were deleted.
The ITAT followed its co-ordinate Bench rulings in the assessee's own earlier years on materially identical facts and found no change in law or evidence to justify a different view. It held that the presence of related entities in India and the support services they rendered did not create a fixed place, service or dependent agent PE, or a business connection, so reinsurance and retrocession receipts were not taxable in India as business profits under the treaty. It also held that the support service receipts failed the make-available test because no technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process was transferred for independent future use, and the amounts were therefore not taxable as fees for technical services. The impugned additions were deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.